Fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface of a parallel computer
Fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (‘PAMI’) of a parallel computer, the PAMI including data communications endpoints, each endpoint comprising a specification of data communications parameters for a thread of execution on a compute node, including specifications of a client, a context, and a task, the compute nodes coupled for data communications through the PAMI and through data communications resources including a deterministic data communications network, including initiating execution through the PAMI of an ordered sequence of active SEND instructions for SEND data transfers between two endpoints, effecting deterministic SEND data transfers; and executing through the PAMI, with no FENCE accounting for SEND data transfers, an active FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction completing execution only after completion of all SEND instructions initiated prior to execution of the FENCE instruction for SEND data transfers between the two endpoints.
Latest IBM Patents:
- Vertical fin field effect transistor devices with reduced top source/drain variability and lower resistance
- Wide-base magnetic tunnel junction device with sidewall polymer spacer
- Cyclopropeneimines for capture and transfer of carbon dioxide
- Confined bridge cell phase change memory
- Computer enabled modeling for facilitating a user learning trajectory to a learning goal
This invention was made with Government support under Contract No. B554331 awarded by the Department of Energy. The Government has certain rights in this invention.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION1. Field of the Invention
The field of the invention is data processing, or, more specifically, methods, apparatus, and products for fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (PAMI) of a parallel computer.
2. Description of Related Art
The development of the EDVAC computer system of 1948 is often cited as the beginning of the computer era. Since that time, computer systems have evolved into extremely complicated devices. Today's computers are much more sophisticated than early systems such as the EDVAC. Computer systems typically include a combination of hardware and software components, application programs, operating systems, processors, buses, memory, input/output devices, and so on. As advances in semiconductor processing and computer architecture push the performance of the computer higher and higher, more sophisticated computer software has evolved to take advantage of the higher performance of the hardware, resulting in computer systems today that are much more powerful than just a few years ago.
Parallel computing is an area of computer technology that has experienced advances. Parallel computing is the simultaneous execution of the same application (split up and specially adapted) on multiple processors in order to obtain results faster. Parallel computing is based on the fact that the process of solving a problem usually can be divided into smaller jobs, which may be carried out simultaneously with some coordination.
Parallel computers execute parallel algorithms. A parallel algorithm can be split up to be executed a piece at a time on many different processing devices, and then put back together again at the end to get a data processing result. Some algorithms are easy to divide up into pieces. Splitting up the job of checking all of the numbers from one to a hundred thousand to see which are primes could be done, for example, by assigning a subset of the numbers to each available processor, and then putting the list of positive results back together. In this specification, the multiple processing devices that execute the individual pieces of a parallel program are referred to as ‘compute nodes.’ A parallel computer is composed of compute nodes and other processing nodes as well, including, for example, input/output (‘I/O’) nodes, and service nodes.
Parallel algorithms are valuable because it is faster to perform some kinds of large computing jobs via a parallel algorithm than it is via a serial (non-parallel) algorithm, because of the way modern processors work. It is far more difficult to construct a computer with a single fast processor than one with many slow processors with the same throughput. There are also certain theoretical limits to the potential speed of serial processors. On the other hand, every parallel algorithm has a serial part and so parallel algorithms have a saturation point. After that point adding more processors does not yield any more throughput but only increases the overhead and cost.
Parallel algorithms are designed also to optimize one more resource the data communications requirements among the nodes of a parallel computer. There are two ways parallel processors communicate, shared memory or message passing. Shared memory processing needs additional locking for the data and imposes the overhead of additional processor and bus cycles and also serializes some portion of the algorithm.
Message passing processing uses high-speed data communications networks and message buffers, but this communication adds transfer overhead on the data communications networks as well as additional memory need for message buffers and latency in the data communications among nodes. Designs of parallel computers use specially designed data communications links so that the communication overhead will be small but it is the parallel algorithm that decides the volume of the traffic.
Many data communications network architectures are used for message passing among nodes in parallel computers. Compute nodes may be organized in a network as a ‘torus’ or ‘mesh,’ for example. Also, compute nodes may be organized in a network as a tree. A torus network connects the nodes in a three-dimensional mesh with wrap around links. Every node is connected to its six neighbors through this torus network, and each node is addressed by its x,y,z coordinate in the mesh. In a tree network, the nodes typically are connected into a binary tree: each node has a parent, and two children (although some nodes may only have zero children or one child, depending on the hardware configuration). In computers that use a torus and a tree network, the two networks typically are implemented independently of one another, with separate routing circuits, separate physical links, and separate message buffers.
A torus network lends itself to point to point operations, but a tree network typically is inefficient in point to point communication. A tree network, however, does provide high bandwidth and low latency for certain collective operations, message passing operations where all compute nodes participate simultaneously, such as, for example, an allgather.
One-sided message passing is a way to transmit information without active participation from a communications target, and FENCE instructions and protocols advise applications of completion of particular sequences of data communications instructions. Traditional FENCE protocols, however, are artifacts of application-level messaging modules, two-sided, inefficient, burdensome, difficult to implement. Existing FENCE protocols, for example, employ FENCE accounting with large counter arrays to guarantee the validity of FENCE operations. Readers will recognize that much of the usefulness of parallel operations, such as FENCE operations, is processing control on massively parallel machines, ‘supercomputers,’ with possibly thousands of compute nodes, millions of data communications endpoints each of which sends to all others, and therefore trillions of messages, so that such traditional FENCE accounting would require maintenance of huge counter arrays.
Parallel compute nodes, even in supercomputers, typically have limited on-board memory, so that large arrays of completion counters simply cannot scale. IBM's next-generation Blue Gene™ supercomputer, for example, supports on the order of a million communications endpoints, although each hardware process will have assigned to it only 250 MB of RAM, much too much of which would be occupied by any attempt at traditional FENCE accounting with counter arrays. Another inefficiency in traditional FENCE operations is that acknowledgement packets, even for one-sided operation, quickly lead to network congestion and poor one-sided latency, easily to be seen in a supercomputer setting with a few trillion messages in flight.
SUMMARY OF THE INVENTIONMethods, apparatus, and computer program products for fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (PAMI) of a parallel computer, the parallel computer including a plurality of compute nodes that execute a parallel application, the PAMI including data communications endpoints, each endpoint comprising a specification of data communications parameters for a thread of execution on a compute node, including specifications of a client, a context, and a task, the compute nodes coupled for data communications through the PAMI and through data communications resources including a deterministic data communications network through which data communications are delivered to target endpoints in the same order in which the communications are transmitted from origin endpoints, including initiating execution through the PAMI of an ordered sequence of active SEND instructions for SEND data transfers between two endpoints, a designated origin endpoint on an origin compute node and a designated target endpoint on a target compute node, each SEND instruction effecting a deterministic SEND data transfer, from the designated origin endpoint to the designated target endpoint, through the deterministic data communications network in which the SEND data transfers are effected according to the ordered sequence of the SEND instructions; and executing through the PAMI, with no FENCE accounting for SEND data transfers, an active FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction completing execution only after completion of all SEND instructions initiated prior to execution of the FENCE instruction for SEND data transfers between the two endpoints.
The foregoing and other objects, features and advantages of the invention will be apparent from the following more particular descriptions of example embodiments of the invention as illustrated in the accompanying drawings wherein like reference numbers generally represent like parts of example embodiments of the invention.
Example methods, computers, and computer program products for fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (‘PAMI’) according to embodiments of the present invention are described with reference to the accompanying drawings, beginning with
The parallel computer (100) in the example of
In addition, the compute nodes (102) of parallel computer are organized into at least one operational group (132) of compute nodes for collective parallel operations on parallel computer (100). An operational group of compute nodes is the set of compute nodes upon which a collective parallel operation executes. Collective operations are implemented with data communications among the compute nodes of an operational group. Collective operations are those functions that involve all the compute nodes of an operational group. A collective operation is an operation, a message-passing computer program instruction that is executed simultaneously, that is, at approximately the same time, by all the compute nodes in an operational group of compute nodes. Such an operational group may include all the compute nodes in a parallel computer (100) or a subset all the compute nodes. Collective operations are often built around point to point operations. A collective operation requires that all processes on all compute nodes within an operational group call the same collective operation with matching arguments. A ‘broadcast’ is an example of a collective operations for moving data among compute nodes of an operational group. A ‘reduce’ operation is an example of a collective operation that executes arithmetic or logical functions on data distributed among the compute nodes of an operational group. An operational group may be implemented as, for example, an MPI ‘communicator.’
‘MPI’ refers to ‘Message Passing Interface,’ a prior art applications messaging module or parallel communications library, an application-level messaging module of computer program instructions for data communications on parallel computers. Such an application messaging module is disposed in an application messaging layer in a data communications protocol stack. Examples of prior-art parallel communications libraries that may be improved for use with parallel computers that fence data transfers in a PAMI according to embodiments of the present invention include IBM's MPI library, the ‘Parallel Virtual Machine’ (‘PVM’) library, MPICH, OpenMPI, and LAM/MPI. MPI is promulgated by the MPI Forum, an open group with representatives from many organizations that define and maintain the MPI standard. MPI at the time of this writing is a de facto standard for communication among compute nodes running a parallel program on a distributed memory parallel computer. This specification sometimes uses MPI terminology for ease of explanation, although the use of MPI as such is not a requirement or limitation of the present invention.
Most collective operations are variations or combinations of four basic operations: broadcast, gather, scatter, and reduce. In a broadcast operation, all processes specify the same root process, whose buffer contents will be sent. Processes other than the root specify receive buffers. After the operation, all buffers contain the message from the root process.
A scatter operation, like the broadcast operation, is also a one-to-many collective operation. All processes specify the same receive count. The send arguments are only significant to the root process, whose buffer actually contains sendcount*N elements of a given datatype, where N is the number of processes in the given group of compute nodes. The send buffer will be divided equally and dispersed to all processes (including itself). Each compute node is assigned a sequential identifier termed a ‘rank.’ After the operation, the root has sent sendcount data elements to each process in increasing rank order. Rank 0 receives the first sendcount data elements from the send buffer. Rank 1 receives the second sendcount data elements from the send buffer, and so on.
A gather operation is a many-to-one collective operation that is a complete reverse of the description of the scatter operation. That is, a gather is a many-to-one collective operation in which elements of a datatype are gathered from the ranked compute nodes into a receive buffer in a root node.
A reduce operation is also a many-to-one collective operation that includes an arithmetic or logical function performed on two data elements. All processes specify the same ‘count’ and the same arithmetic or logical function. After the reduction, all processes have sent count data elements from computer node send buffers to the root process. In a reduction operation, data elements from corresponding send buffer locations are combined pair-wise by arithmetic or logical operations to yield a single corresponding element in the root process's receive buffer. Application specific reduction operations can be defined at runtime. Parallel communications libraries may support predefined operations. MPI, for example, provides the following predefined reduction operations:
In addition to compute nodes, the example parallel computer (100) includes input/output (‘I/O’) nodes (110, 114) coupled to compute nodes (102) through one of the data communications networks (174). The I/O nodes (110, 114) provide I/O services between compute nodes (102) and I/O devices (118, 120, 122). I/O nodes (110, 114) are connected for data communications I/O devices (118, 120, 122) through local area network (‘LAN’) (130). Computer (100) also includes a service node (116) coupled to the compute nodes through one of the networks (104). Service node (116) provides service common to pluralities of compute nodes, loading programs into the compute nodes, starting program execution on the compute nodes, retrieving results of program operations on the computer nodes, and so on. Service node (116) runs a service application (124) and communicates with users (128) through a service application interface (126) that runs on computer terminal (122).
As the term is used here, a parallel active messaging interface or ‘PAMI’ (218) is a system-level messaging layer in a protocol stack of a parallel computer that is composed of data communications endpoints each of which is specified with data communications parameters for a thread of execution on a compute node of the parallel computer. The PAMI is a ‘parallel’ interface in that many instances of the PAMI operate in parallel on the compute nodes of a parallel computer. The PAMI is an ‘active messaging interface’ in that data communications messages in the PAMI are active messages, ‘active’ in the sense that such messages implement callback functions to advise of message dispatch and instruction completion and so on, thereby reducing the quantity of acknowledgment traffic and the like burdening the data communication resources of the PAMI.
Each data communications endpoint of a PAMI is implemented as a combination of a client, a context, and a task. A ‘client’ as the term is used in PAMI operations is a collection of data communications resources dedicated to the exclusive use of an application-level data processing entity, an application or an application messaging module such as an MPI library. A ‘context’ as the term is used in PAMI operations is composed of a subset of a client's collection of data processing resources, context functions, and a work queue of data transfer instructions to be performed by use of the subset through the context functions operated by an assigned thread of execution. In at least some embodiments, the context's subset of a client's data processing resources is dedicated to the exclusive use of the context. A ‘task’ as the term is used in PAMI operations refers to a process of execution for the parallel application. That is, a task is typically implemented as an identifier of a particular instance of an application executing on a compute node, a compute core on a compute node, or a thread of execution on a multi-threading compute core on a compute node.
In the example of
The parallel computer of
The parallel computer of
The arrangement of compute nodes, networks, and I/O devices making up the example parallel computer illustrated in
Fencing data transfers in a PAMI according to embodiments of the present invention is generally implemented on a parallel computer that includes a plurality of compute nodes. In fact, such computers may include thousands of such compute nodes. Each compute node is in turn itself a computer composed of one or more computer processors, its own computer memory, and its own input/output (‘I/O’) adapters. For further explanation, therefore,
Also stored RAM (156) is an application messaging module (216), a library of computer program instructions that carry out application-level parallel communications among compute nodes, including point to point operations as well as collective operations. Although the application program can call PAMI routines directly, the application program (158) often executes point-to-point data communications operations by calling software routines in the application messaging module (216), which in turn is improved according to embodiments of the present invention to use PAMI functions to implement such communications. An application messaging module can be developed from scratch to use a PAMI according to embodiments of the present invention, using a traditional programming language such as the C programming language or C++, for example, and using traditional programming methods to write parallel communications routines that send and receive data among nodes through data communications networks or shared-memory transfers. In this approach, the application messaging module (216) exposes a traditional interface, such as MPI, to the application program (158) so that the application program can gain the benefits of a PAMI with no need to recode the application. As an alternative to coding from scratch, therefore, existing prior art application messaging modules may be improved to use the PAMI, existing modules that already implement a traditional interface. Examples of prior-art application messaging modules that can be improved to FENCE with a PAMI according to embodiments of the present invention include such parallel communications libraries as the traditional ‘Message Passing Interface’ (‘MPI’) library, the ‘Parallel Virtual Machine’ (‘PVM’) library, MPICH, and the like.
Also represented in RAM in the example of
Also stored in RAM (156) is an operating system (162), a module of computer program instructions and routines for an application program's access to other resources of the compute node. It is possible for an application program, an application messaging module, and a PAMI in a compute node of a parallel computer to run threads of execution with no user login and no security issues because each such thread is entitled to complete access to all resources of the node. The quantity and complexity of tasks to be performed by an operating system on a compute node in a parallel computer therefore can be somewhat smaller and less complex than those of an operating system on a serial computer with many threads running simultaneously with various level of authorization for access to resources. In addition, there is no video I/O on the compute node (152) of
The example compute node (152) of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The data communications adapters in the example of
The example compute node (152) includes two arithmetic logic units (‘ALUs’). ALU (166) is a component of a processor (164), and a separate ALU (170) is dedicated to the exclusive use of collective operations adapter (188) for use in performing the arithmetic and logical functions of reduction operations. Computer program instructions of a reduction routine in an application messaging module (216) or a PAMI (218) may latch an instruction for an arithmetic or logical function into instruction register (169). When the arithmetic or logical function of a reduction operation is a ‘sum’ or a ‘logical OR,’ for example, collective operations adapter (188) may execute the arithmetic or logical operation by use of ALU (166) in processor (164) or, typically much faster, by use dedicated ALU (170).
The example compute node (152) of
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
For further explanation,
In the example of
For further explanation,
The application layer (208) provides communications between instances of a parallel application (158) running on the compute nodes (222, 224) by invoking functions in an application messaging module (216) installed on each compute node. Communications among instances of the application through messages passed between the instances of the application. Applications may communicate messages invoking function of an application programming interface (‘API’) exposed by the application messaging module (216). In this approach, the application messaging module (216) exposes a traditional interface, such as an API of an MPI library, to the application program (158) so that the application program can gain the benefits of a PAMI, reduced network traffic, callback functions, and so on, with no need to recode the application. Alternatively, if the parallel application is programmed to use PAMI functions, the application can call the PAMI functions directly, without going through the application messaging module.
The example protocol stack of
The protocol stack of
For further explanation,
The PAMI (218) in this example includes PAMI clients (302, 304), tasks (286, 298), contexts (190, 292, 310, 312), and endpoints (288, 300). A PAMI client is a collections is a collection of data communications resources (294, 295, 314) dedicated to the exclusive use of an application-level data processing entity, an application or an application messaging module such as an MPI library. Data communications resources to be assigned in collections to PAMI clients are explained in more detail with reference to
PAMI clients enable higher level middleware, application messaging modules, MPI libraries, and the like, to be developed independently so that each can be used concurrently by an application. Although the application messaging layer in
-
- IBM MPI Library (502) operates through context (512) data communications resources (522) dedicated to the use of PAMI client (532),
- MPICH Library (504) operates through context (514) data communications resources (524) dedicated to the use of PAMI client (534),
- Unified Parallel C (‘UPC’) Library (506) operates through context (516) data communications resources (526) dedicated to the use of PAMI client (536),
- Partitioned Global Access Space (‘PGAS’) Runtime Library (508) operates through context (518) data communications resources (528) dedicated to the use of PAMI client (538), and
- Aggregate Remote Memory Copy Interface (‘ARMCI’) Library (510) operates through context (520) data communications resources (530) dedicated to the use of PAMI client (540).
Again referring to the example of
The PAMI (218) includes contexts (290, 292, 310, 312). A ‘context’ as the term is used in PAMI operations is composed of a subset of a client's collection of data processing resources, context functions, and a work queue of data transfer instructions to be performed by use of the subset through the context functions operated by an assigned thread of execution. That is, a context represents a partition of the local data communications resources assigned to a PAMI client. Every context within a client has equivalent functionality and semantics. Context functions implement contexts as threading points that applications use to optimize concurrent communications. Communications initiated by a local process, an instance of a parallel application, uses a context object to identify the specific threading point that will be used to issue a particular communication independent of communications occurring in other contexts. In the example of
Functions on a context, post, advance, and so on, are critical sections, not guaranteed to be thread safe. Applications must somehow ensure that critical sections are protected from re-entrant use. Applications can use mutual exclusion locks to protect critical sections. Or, to the extent that progress is driven independently on a context by a single thread of execution, then no mutual exclusion locking of the context itself is required—provided that no other thread ever attempts to call a function on such a context. Progress can be driven with advance functions concurrently among multiple context, by using multiple threads, as desired by an application—shown here by threads (253, 254, 262, 264) which advance work concurrently, independently and in parallel, on contexts (290, 292, 310, 312).
Context functions, explained here with regard to references (472-482) on
Posts and advances (480, 482 on
In at least some embodiments, the context's subset of a client's data processing resources is dedicated to the exclusive use of the context. In the example of
This short program is termed ‘pseudocode’ because it is an explanation in the form of computer code, not a working model, not an actual program for execution. In this pseudocode example, an application initializes a client and a context for an application named “PAMI.” PAMI_Client_initialize and PAMI_Context_createv are initialization functions (316) exposed to applications as part of a PAMI's API. These functions, in dependence upon the application name “PAMI,” pull from a PAMI configuration (318) the information needed to establish a client and a context for the application. The application uses this segment:
-
- PAMI_configuration_t configuration;
- configuration.name=PAMI_TASK_ID;
- status=PAMI_Configuration_query(client, &configuration);
- size_t task_id=configuration.value.intval;
to retrieve its task ID and this segment: - configuration.name=PAMI_NUM_TASKS;
- status=PAMI_Configuration_query(client, &configuration);
- size_t num_tasks=configuration.value.intval;
to retrieve the number of tasks presently configured to carry out parallel communications and fencing of data transfers through the PAMI. The applications prints “Hello process task_id of num_tasks,” where task_id is the task ID of the subject instance of a parallel application, and num_tasks is the number of instances of the application executing in parallel on compute nodes. Finally, the application destroys the context and terminates the client.
For further explanation,
Each endpoint (338, 340, 342, 344) in the example of
For efficient utilization of storage in an environment where multiple tasks of a client reside on the same physical compute node, an application may choose to write an endpoint table (288, 300 on
Endpoints (342, 344) on compute node (153) serve respectively two application instances (157, 159). The tasks (334, 336) in endpoints (342, 344) are different. The task (334) in endpoint (342) is identified by the task ID (249) of application (157), and the task (336) in endpoint (344) is identified by the task ID (251) of application (159). The clients (304, 305) in endpoints (342, 344) are different, separate clients. Client (304) in endpoint (342) associates data communications resources (e.g., 294, 296, 314 on
Contrasted with the PAMIs (218) on compute node (153), the PAMI (218) on compute node (152) serves only one instance of a parallel application (158) with two endpoints (338, 340). The tasks (332, 333) in endpoints (338, 340) are the same, because they both represent a same instance of a same application (158); both tasks (332,333) therefore are identified, either with a same variable value, references to a same object, or the like, by the task ID (250) of application (158). The clients (302, 303) in endpoints (338, 340) are optionally either different, separate clients or the same client. If they are different, each associates a separate collection of data communications resources. If they are the same, then each client (302, 303) in the PAMI (218) on compute node (152) associates a same set of data communications resources and is identified with a same value, object reference, or the like. Contexts (290, 292) in endpoints (338, 340) are different, separate contexts. Context (290) in endpoint (338) operates on behalf of application (158) a subset of the data communications resources of client (302) regardless whether clients (302, 303) are the same client or different clients, and context (292) in endpoint (340) operates on behalf of application (158) a subset of the data communications resources of client (303) regardless whether clients (302, 303) are the same client or different clients. Thus the tasks (332, 333) are the same; the clients (302, 303) can be the same; and the endpoints (338, 340) are distinguished at least by different contexts (290, 292), each of which operates on behalf of one of the threads (251-254) of application (158), identified typically by a context offset or a threading point.
Endpoints (338, 340) being as they are on the same compute node (152) can effect data communications between endpoints (338, 340) through a segment of shared memory (346); communications between endpoints (338, 340) and endpoints (342, 344) on other compute nodes go through the deterministic network (108). Endpoints (342, 344) being as they are on the same compute node (153) can effect data communications between endpoints (342, 344) through a segment of shared memory (348); communications between endpoints (342, 344) and endpoints (338, 340) on other compute nodes go through the deterministic network (108).
For further explanation,
The method of
The method of
For further explanation,
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
It is typical of a calling application, after issuing the FENCE instruction, to cease further messaging operations between the two endpoints that are the subject of the FENCE until completion of all SEND data transfers previously initiated between the two endpoints—signified by completion of the FENCE—signified by the execution of the FENCE done callback advising the calling application that the FENCE has completed. It is not a function of the FENCE to block messaging operations between the endpoints until completion of the FENCE; the application itself must provide this function, and messaging will probably continue between other endpoints on behalf of the same application. On the other hand, most applications behave this way because it is in the application's interest to know by the FENCE when all transfers between those two particular endpoints has completed; that is the purpose of the FENCE call in the first place.
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
For further explanation,
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
The method of
In view of the explanations set forth above, readers will recognize that the benefits of fencing data transfers in a PAMI of a parallel computer according to embodiments of the present invention include a new fence protocol that provides low-latency, eliminates network congestion due to the fence, and eliminates the need for counter arrays. Indeed, fencing data transfers according to embodiments of the present invention is carried out without maintaining any status information whatsoever on fenced data transfer messages.
Example embodiments of the present invention are described largely in the context of a fully functional parallel computer that fences data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (‘PAMI’). Readers of skill in the art will recognize, however, that the present invention also may be embodied in a computer program product disposed upon computer readable storage media for use with any suitable data processing system. Such computer readable storage media may be any storage medium for machine-readable information, including magnetic media, optical media, or other suitable media. Examples of such media include magnetic disks in hard drives or diskettes, compact disks for optical drives, magnetic tape, and others as will occur to those of skill in the art. Persons skilled in the art will immediately recognize that any computer system having suitable programming means will be capable of executing the steps of the method of the invention as embodied in a computer program product. Persons skilled in the art will recognize also that, although some of the example embodiments described in this specification are oriented to software installed and executing on computer hardware, nevertheless, alternative embodiments implemented as firmware or as hardware are well within the scope of the present invention.
As will be appreciated by one skilled in the art, aspects of the present invention may be embodied as a system, method or computer program product. Accordingly, aspects of the present invention may take the form of an entirely hardware embodiment, an entirely software embodiment (including firmware, resident software, micro-code, etc.) or an embodiment combining software and hardware aspects that may all generally be referred to herein as a “circuit,” “module” or “system.” Furthermore, aspects of the present invention may take the form of a computer program product embodied in one or more computer readable media having computer readable program code embodied thereon.
Any combination of one or more computer readable media may be utilized. Such a computer readable medium may be a computer readable signal medium or a computer readable storage medium. A computer readable storage medium may be, for example, but not limited to, an electronic, magnetic, optical, electromagnetic, infrared, or semiconductor system, apparatus, or device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. More specific examples (a non-exhaustive list) of the computer readable storage medium would include the following: an electrical connection having one or more wires, a portable computer diskette, a hard disk, a random access memory (RAM), a read-only memory (ROM), an erasable programmable read-only memory (EPROM or Flash memory), an optical fiber, a portable compact disc read-only memory (CD-ROM), an optical storage device, a magnetic storage device, or any suitable combination of the foregoing. In the context of this document, a computer readable storage medium may be any tangible medium that can contain, or store a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device.
A computer readable signal medium may include a propagated data signal with computer readable program code embodied therein, for example, in baseband or as part of a carrier wave. Such a propagated signal may take any of a variety of forms, including, but not limited to, electro-magnetic, optical, or any suitable combination thereof. A computer readable signal medium may be any computer readable medium that is not a computer readable storage medium and that can communicate, propagate, or transport a program for use by or in connection with an instruction execution system, apparatus, or device. Program code embodied on a computer readable medium may be transmitted using any appropriate medium, including but not limited to wireless, wireline, optical fiber cable, RF, etc., or any suitable combination of the foregoing.
Computer program code for carrying out operations for aspects of the present invention may be written in any combination of one or more programming languages, including an object oriented programming language such as Java, Smalltalk, C++ or the like and conventional procedural programming languages, such as the “C” programming language or similar programming languages. The program code may execute entirely on the user's computer, partly on the user's computer, as a stand-alone software package, partly on the user's computer and partly on a remote computer or entirely on the remote computer or server. In the latter scenario, the remote computer may be connected to the user's computer through any type of network, including a local area network (LAN) or a wide area network (WAN), or the connection may be made to an external computer (for example, through the Internet using an Internet Service Provider).
Aspects of the present invention are described in this specification with reference to flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams of methods, apparatus (systems) and computer program products according to embodiments of the invention. It will be understood that each block of the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, and combinations of blocks in the flowchart illustrations and/or block diagrams, can be implemented by computer program instructions. These computer program instructions may be provided to a processor of a general purpose computer, special purpose computer, or other programmable data processing apparatus to produce a machine, such that the instructions, which execute via the processor of the computer or other programmable data processing apparatus, create means for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
These computer program instructions may also be stored in a computer readable medium that can direct a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to function in a particular manner, such that the instructions stored in the computer readable medium produce an article of manufacture including instructions which implement the function/act specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The computer program instructions may also be loaded onto a computer, other programmable data processing apparatus, or other devices to cause a series of operational steps to be performed on the computer, other programmable apparatus or other devices to produce a computer implemented process such that the instructions which execute on the computer or other programmable apparatus provide processes for implementing the functions/acts specified in the flowchart and/or block diagram block or blocks.
The flowchart and block diagrams in the Figures illustrate the architecture, functionality, and operation of possible implementations of systems, methods and computer program products according to various embodiments of the present invention. In this regard, each block in the flowchart or block diagrams may represent a module, segment, or portion of code, which comprises one or more executable instructions for implementing the specified logical function(s). It should also be noted that, in some alternative implementations, the functions noted in the block may occur out of the order noted in the figures. For example, two blocks shown in succession may, in fact, be executed substantially concurrently, or the blocks may sometimes be executed in the reverse order, depending upon the functionality involved. It will also be noted that each block of the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, and combinations of blocks in the block diagrams and/or flowchart illustration, can be implemented by special purpose hardware-based systems that perform the specified functions or acts, or combinations of special purpose hardware and computer instructions.
It will be understood from the foregoing description that modifications and changes may be made in various embodiments of the present invention without departing from its true spirit. The descriptions in this specification are for purposes of illustration only and are not to be construed in a limiting sense. The scope of the present invention is limited only by the language of the following claims.
Claims
1. A parallel computer that fences data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (‘PAMI’), comprising:
- receiving, at an origin endpoint in the PAMI, a plurality of non-blocking SEND instructions from an application, wherein each of the plurality of SEND instruction specifies a data transfer from the origin endpoint to a target endpoint in the PAMI;
- receiving, at an origin endpoint, a FENCE instruction corresponding to transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint, wherein the FENCE instruction advises the application when the transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint are complete, wherein the origin endpoint is on an origin compute node and the target endpoint on a target compute node, and wherein the transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint occur across a deterministic data communications network;
- posting the plurality of SEND instruction in an ordered sequence in a work queue of the origin endpoint;
- posting the FENCE instruction in the work queue of the origin endpoint at a location in the ordered sequence such that the FENCE instruction is processed after each of the plurality of SEND instructions is processed; and
- executing, by the origin endpoint, an advance function comprising initiating execution through the PAMI of instructions in the work queue, such that the FENCE instruction executing only after completion of all SEND instructions initiated prior to the FENCE instruction in the work queue, wherein execution of the FENCE instruction indicates to the application that execution of the SEND instructions is complete.
2. The parallel computer of claim 1 wherein:
- the client comprises a collection of data communications resources dedicated to the exclusive use of an application-level data processing entity;
- the context comprises a subset of the collection of data processing resources, context functions, and a work queue of data transfer instructions to be performed by use of the subset through the context functions operated by an assigned thread of execution; and
- the task comprises a process of execution for the parallel application.
3. The parallel computer of claim 1 wherein each context carries out, through post and advance functions, data communications for the application on data communications resources in the exclusive possession of that context.
4. The parallel computer of claim 1 wherein each context carries out data communications operations independently and in parallel with other contexts.
5. The parallel computer of claim 1 wherein executing a FENCE instruction further comprises:
- receiving in the PAMI through the origin endpoint the FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction specifying a FENCE done callback function;
- transmitting by the PAMI the FENCE instruction to the target endpoint, the FENCE instruction specifying a dispatch callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target compute node the dispatch callback function for the FENCE instruction, sending to the origin a FENCE synchronization message;
- responsive to the FENCE synchronization message, transmitting by the PAMI from the origin endpoint to the target endpoint a transfer completion notification message after completion of all SEND data transfers previously initiated between the two endpoints, the transfer completion notification message specifying a FENCE acknowledgment callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target node the FENCE acknowledgment call back function, including transmitting from the target to the origin a FENCE acknowledgment message; and
- executing by the PAMI in the origin node the FENCE done callback function.
6. The parallel computer of claim 1 wherein executing a FENCE instruction further comprises:
- receiving in the PAMI through the origin endpoint the FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction specifying a FENCE done callback function;
- transmitting by the PAMI, after completion of all SEND data transfers previously initiated between the two endpoints, the FENCE instruction to the target endpoint, the FENCE instruction specifying a dispatch callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target compute node the dispatch callback function for the FENCE instruction, including sending to the origin a FENCE synchronization message;
- responsive to the FENCE synchronization message, transmitting by the PAMI from the origin endpoint to the target endpoint a transfer completion notification message, the transfer completion notification message specifying a FENCE acknowledgment callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target node the FENCE acknowledgment call back function, including transmitting from the target to the origin a FENCE acknowledgment message; and
- executing by the PAMI in the origin node the FENCE done callback function.
7. A computer program product for fencing data transfers in a parallel active messaging interface (‘PAMI’) of a parallel computer, the computer program product disposed on a computer readable storage medium, the computer readable storage medium is not a signal, the computer program product comprising computer program instructions capable, when executed, of causing the parallel computer to function by:
- receiving, at an origin endpoint in the PAMI, a plurality of non-blocking SEND instructions from an application, wherein each of the plurality of SEND instruction specifies a data transfer from the origin endpoint to a target endpoint in the PAMI;
- receiving, at an origin endpoint, a FENCE instruction corresponding to transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint, wherein the FENCE instruction advises the application when the transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint are complete, wherein the origin endpoint is on an origin compute node and the target endpoint on a target compute node, and wherein the transfers between the origin endpoint and the target endpoint occur across a deterministic data communications network;
- posting the plurality of SEND instruction in an ordered sequence in a work queue of the origin endpoint;
- posting the FENCE instruction in the work queue of the origin endpoint at a location in the ordered sequence such that the FENCE instruction is processed after each of the plurality of SEND instructions is processed; and
- executing, by the origin endpoint, an advance function comprising initiating execution through the PAMI of instructions in the work queue, such that the FENCE instruction executing only after completion of all SEND instructions initiated prior to the FENCE instruction in the work queue, wherein execution of the FENCE instruction indicates to the application that execution of the SEND instructions is complete.
8. The computer program product of claim 7 wherein:
- the client comprises a collection of data communications resources dedicated to the exclusive use of an application-level data processing entity;
- the context comprises a subset of the collection of data processing resources, context functions, and a work queue of data transfer instructions to be performed by use of the subset through the context functions operated by an assigned thread of execution; and
- the task comprises a process of execution for the parallel application.
9. The computer program product of claim 7 wherein each context carries out, through post and advance functions, data communications for the application on data communications resources in the exclusive possession of that context.
10. The computer program product of claim 7 wherein each context carries out data communications operations independently and in parallel with other contexts.
11. The computer program product of claim 7 wherein executing a FENCE instruction further comprises:
- receiving in the PAMI through the origin endpoint the FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction specifying a FENCE done callback function;
- transmitting by the PAMI the FENCE instruction to the target endpoint, the FENCE instruction specifying a dispatch callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target compute node the dispatch callback function for the FENCE instruction, sending to the origin a FENCE synchronization message;
- responsive to the FENCE synchronization message, transmitting by the PAMI from the origin endpoint to the target endpoint a transfer completion notification message after completion of all SEND data transfers previously initiated between the two endpoints, the transfer completion notification message specifying a FENCE acknowledgment callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target node the FENCE acknowledgment call back function, including transmitting from the target to the origin a FENCE acknowledgment message; and
- executing by the PAMI in the origin node the FENCE done callback function.
12. The computer program product of claim 7 wherein executing a FENCE instruction further comprises:
- receiving in the PAMI through the origin endpoint the FENCE instruction, the FENCE instruction specifying a FENCE done callback function;
- transmitting by the PAMI, after completion of all SEND data transfers previously initiated between the two endpoints, the FENCE instruction to the target endpoint, the FENCE instruction specifying a dispatch callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target compute node the dispatch callback function for the FENCE instruction, including sending to the origin a FENCE synchronization message;
- responsive to the FENCE synchronization message, transmitting by the PAMI from the origin endpoint to the target endpoint a transfer completion notification message, the transfer completion notification message specifying a FENCE acknowledgment callback function;
- executing by the PAMI in the target node the FENCE acknowledgment call back function, including transmitting from the target to the origin a FENCE acknowledgment message; and
- executing by the PAMI in the origin node the FENCE done callback function.
| 4893303 | January 9, 1990 | Nakamura |
| 5488608 | January 30, 1996 | Flammer, III |
| 5802278 | September 1, 1998 | Isfeld et al. |
| 6070189 | May 30, 2000 | Bender et al. |
| 6337852 | January 8, 2002 | Desnoyers et al. |
| 6438748 | August 20, 2002 | Gard et al. |
| 6519310 | February 11, 2003 | Chapple |
| 6553002 | April 22, 2003 | Bremer et al. |
| 6553031 | April 22, 2003 | Nakamura et al. |
| 6591310 | July 8, 2003 | Johnson |
| 6601089 | July 29, 2003 | Sistare et al. |
| 6801927 | October 5, 2004 | Smith et al. |
| 6847911 | January 25, 2005 | Huckaby et al. |
| 6847991 | January 25, 2005 | Kurapati |
| 6993769 | January 31, 2006 | Simonson et al. |
| 7155560 | December 26, 2006 | McGrew et al. |
| 7237036 | June 26, 2007 | Boucher et al. |
| 7328300 | February 5, 2008 | Bennett |
| 7392352 | June 24, 2008 | Mithal et al. |
| 7418470 | August 26, 2008 | Howard et al. |
| 7464138 | December 9, 2008 | Le et al. |
| 7533197 | May 12, 2009 | Leonard et al. |
| 7552312 | June 23, 2009 | Archer et al. |
| 7673011 | March 2, 2010 | Archer et al. |
| 7991978 | August 2, 2011 | Kuesel et al. |
| 8001280 | August 16, 2011 | Blumrich et al. |
| 8018951 | September 13, 2011 | Blocksome |
| 8041969 | October 18, 2011 | Archer et al. |
| 8250164 | August 21, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 8286188 | October 9, 2012 | Brief |
| 20020054051 | May 9, 2002 | Ladd |
| 20030093485 | May 15, 2003 | Dougall et al. |
| 20030195991 | October 16, 2003 | Masel et al. |
| 20050166209 | July 28, 2005 | Merrick et al. |
| 20050289235 | December 29, 2005 | Suematsu et al. |
| 20060059257 | March 16, 2006 | Collard et al. |
| 20060101104 | May 11, 2006 | Bhanot et al. |
| 20060182128 | August 17, 2006 | Nakata et al. |
| 20060227774 | October 12, 2006 | Hoenicke |
| 20070078997 | April 5, 2007 | Stern |
| 20070124453 | May 31, 2007 | Slaughter et al. |
| 20070169176 | July 19, 2007 | Cook et al. |
| 20070169179 | July 19, 2007 | Narad |
| 20080101295 | May 1, 2008 | Tomita et al. |
| 20080126739 | May 29, 2008 | Archer et al. |
| 20080281998 | November 13, 2008 | Archer et al. |
| 20090003344 | January 1, 2009 | Kumar |
| 20090006808 | January 1, 2009 | Blumrich et al. |
| 20090006810 | January 1, 2009 | Almasi et al. |
| 20090007141 | January 1, 2009 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20090022156 | January 22, 2009 | Blocksome |
| 20090037377 | February 5, 2009 | Archer et al. |
| 20090089670 | April 2, 2009 | Gooding et al. |
| 20090129277 | May 21, 2009 | Supalov et al. |
| 20090138892 | May 28, 2009 | Almasi et al. |
| 20090254920 | October 8, 2009 | Truschin et al. |
| 20100005189 | January 7, 2010 | Archer et al. |
| 20100036940 | February 11, 2010 | Carey et al. |
| 20100058356 | March 4, 2010 | Aho et al. |
| 20100232448 | September 16, 2010 | Sugumar et al. |
| 20110314255 | December 22, 2011 | Krishna et al. |
| 20120079035 | March 29, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120079133 | March 29, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120117137 | May 10, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120117138 | May 10, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120117211 | May 10, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120117281 | May 10, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120137294 | May 31, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120144400 | June 7, 2012 | Davis et al. |
| 20120144401 | June 7, 2012 | Faraj |
| 20120151485 | June 14, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120179736 | July 12, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120179760 | July 12, 2012 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20120185679 | July 19, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120185873 | July 19, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20120254344 | October 4, 2012 | Archer et al. |
| 20130061244 | March 7, 2013 | Davis et al. |
| 20130061245 | March 7, 2013 | Faraj |
| 20130067111 | March 14, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130067206 | March 14, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130073751 | March 21, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130074097 | March 21, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130081059 | March 28, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130091510 | April 11, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130097263 | April 18, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130097404 | April 18, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130097614 | April 18, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130110901 | May 2, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130117403 | May 9, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130117761 | May 9, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130117764 | May 9, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130124666 | May 16, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130125135 | May 16, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130125140 | May 16, 2013 | Archer et al. |
| 20130174180 | July 4, 2013 | Blocksome et al. |
| 20130185465 | July 18, 2013 | Blocksome |
- Knudson, Brant; “IBM System Blue Gene Solution: Blue Gene/P Application Development,” IBM Redbooks, pp. 1-406, Sep. 2009.
- Blocksome, Michael; “Optimizing MPI Collectives using Efficient Intra-node Communication Techniques over the BlueGene/P Supercomputer,” Computer Science IBM Research Report, Dec. 2010.
- Robinson et al., “A Task Migration Implementation of the Message-Passing Interference”, May 1996, IEEE, HPDC 5'96,pp. 61-68.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/959,539, Oct. 26, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,192, Oct. 30, 2012.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,153, Sep. 25, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,300, Sep. 19, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/963,694, Dec. 24, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,670, Dec. 17, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,642, Jan. 7, 2013.
- U.S. Appl. No. 12/985,651, Jan. 6, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,670, Nov. 7, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,642, Nov. 7, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/292,293, Nov. 9, 2011.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,370, Oct. 24, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,458, Oct. 24, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/668,503, Nov. 5, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/671,762, Nov. 8, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/673,188, Nov. 9, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/677,993, Nov. 15, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/678,799, Nov. 16, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/677,507, Nov. 15, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/679,042, Nov. 16, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/690,168, Nov. 30, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/681,903, Nov. 20, 2012.
- U.S. Appl. No. 13/680,772, Nov. 19, 2012.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,153, Jun. 1, 2012.
- Foster et al., Managing Multiple Communication Method in High-Performance Networked Computing Systems. http://www.mcs.anl.gov/nexus, 1997, pp. 1-25.
- Robinson et al., “A Task Migration Implementation of the Message-Passing Interface”, May 1996, IEEE, HPDC—5'96, pp. 61-68.
- A Message Passing Interface for Parallel and Distributed Computing, Hairi et al., 1993, pp. 1-8.
- Introduction to Parallel Computing and the Message Passing Interface (MPI), Kuiper, 2008, pp. 1-39.
- Parallel net DCF A High-Performance Scientific I/O Interface, Li et al., 2003, pp. 1-11.
- HPSS MPI-IO: A Standard Parallel Interface to HPSS File System, Loewe, 2001, pp. 1-19.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/959,455, Mar. 1, 2013.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/959,539, Mar. 6, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/007,860, Mar. 19, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/963,671, Mar. 1, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,198, Feb. 14, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,282, Feb. 5, 2013.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,670, Mar. 27, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/668,503, Feb. 13, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/673,188, Mar. 5, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/678,799, Feb. 5, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/681,903, Apr. 2, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/709,305, Mar. 25, 2013.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/711,108, Mar. 22, 2013.
- Kumar et al., “The Deep Computing Messaging Framework: Generalized Scalable Message Passing Blue Gene/P Supercomputer”, Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International Conference on Supercomputing (ICS '08), Jun. 2008, pp. 94-103, ACM New York, USA.
- Banikazemi et al., “MPI-LAPI: An Efficient Implementation of MPI for IBM RS/6000 SP Systems”, IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems, Oct. 2001, vol. 12, Issue 10, pp. 1081-1093, IEEE Xplore Digital Library (online publication), IEEE.org, USA, DOI: 10.1109/71.963419.
- Myricom, “Myrinet Express (MX): A High-Performance, Low-Level, Message-Passing Interface for Myrinet”, Myricom.com (online publication), Version 1.2, Oct. 2006, pp. 1 -65, Myricom Inc., USA.
- Ce Dinan et al., “Hybrid Parallel Programming With MPI and Unified Parallel C”, Proceedings of the 7th ACM International Conference on Computing Frontiers (CF'10), May 2010, pp. 177—86, ACM New York, USA.
- Dozsa et al., “Enabling Concurrent Multithreaded MPI Communication on Multicore Petascale Systems”, Proceedings of the 17th European MPI Users' Group Meeting Conference on Recent Advances in the Message Passing Interface (EuroMPI'10), Apr. 2010, pp. 11-20 (reprinted pp. 1-9), Springer-Verlag Berlin, Heidelberg.
- Foster et al., “Managing Multiple Communication Methods in High-Performance Networked Computing Systems”, Journal of Parallel and Distributed Computing , vol. 40, Issue 1, Jan. 1997, pp:1-25, (online publication), ScienceDirect.com, USA.
- Robinson et al., “A Task Migration Implementation of the Message-Passing Interface”, Proceedings of the 5th IEEE International Symposium on High Performance Distributed Computing (HPDC'96), May 1996, pp. 61-68, IEEE Computer Society, Washington DC, USA.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,192, May 2, 2013, 1-25.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,192, Sep. 30, 2013, 1-15.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/007,860, Jul. 3, 2013, 1-8.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,153, Apr. 25, 2013, 1-14.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/892,153, Aug. 14, 2013, 1-9.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/985,611, Aug. 2, 2013, 1-23.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/007,848, May 15, 2013, 1-25.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/007,848, Sep. 13, 2013, 1-24.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/963,671, Sep. 18, 2013, 1-16.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,198, Aug. 14, 2013, 1-16.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,259, Aug. 14, 2013, 1-20.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,282, Sep. 10, 2013, 1-17.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/940,300, Apr. 29, 2013, 1-11.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/963,694, Jun. 18, 2013, 1-21.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/985,651, Aug. 5, 2013, 1-19.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,670, Mar. 27, 2013, 1-19.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/290,642, May 1, 2013, 1-24.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/292,293, Jul. 19, 2013, 1-36.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,370, Oct. 21, 2013, 1-22.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/668,503, Jul. 11, 2013, 1-26.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/671,762, May 13, 2013, 1-22.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/671,762, Sep. 13, 2013, 1-21.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/673,188, Jul. 25, 2013, 1-26.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/678,799, Aug. 30, 2013, 1-17.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/677,507, Aug. 22, 2013, 1-21.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/676,700, Jun. 5, 2013, 1-31.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/690,168, Aug. 15, 2013, 1-30.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/681,903, Sep. 30, 2013, 1-18.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/680,772, Aug. 15, 2013, 1-31.
- Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/710,066, Jul. 19, 2013, 1-36.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/709,305, Aug. 27, 2013, 1-19.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 13/711,108, Jul. 5, 2013, 1-34.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/711,108, Sep. 19, 2013, 1-17.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/784,198, Sep. 20, 2013, 1-11.
- Final Office Action, U.S. Appl. No. 12/956,903, Nov. 6, 2013, 1-20.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/292,293, Nov. 7, 2013, 1-20.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 12/985,651, Feb. 20, 2014, pp. 1-14.
- Notice of Allowance, U.S. Appl. No. 13/659,370, Mar. 13, 2014, pp. 1-15.
Type: Grant
Filed: Nov 5, 2010
Date of Patent: Jun 30, 2015
Patent Publication Number: 20120117211
Assignee: International Business Machines Corporation (Armonk, NY)
Inventors: Michael A. Blocksome (Rochester, MN), Amith R. Mamidala (Yorktown Heights, NY)
Primary Examiner: Viet Vu
Assistant Examiner: Herman Belcher
Application Number: 12/940,198
International Classification: G06F 15/16 (20060101); G06F 15/173 (20060101); G06F 7/38 (20060101); G06F 9/54 (20060101); H04L 29/06 (20060101);
